No, but I am not providing a legal opinion. I am providing some layman advice suggesting that the OP has the outcome he wanted, but he seems churlish in wanting to pursue the staffers in the agency, to teach 'em not to interfere with the lives of him and the child he is taking care of, even though they are obligated to undertake an investigation on lodgement of a complaint. He is the one seeking to harm the officers of the child agency. I am in fact suggesting that he take a course of action that may decrease harm to himself and the child -- reduced financial and emotional burden as much as anything else.

How do you know the matter before the agency might not have been dismissed except for the lawsuit in court? Are you a lawyer licensed to practice in the state of NY?

And I would get your facts straight, buddy-boy. I am an Australian, living in Australia. Oddly, Australia offers up support to the US in just about any conflict around the world. We've lost soldiers in Vietnam, the Middle-East, Korea and other places fighting your wars. I have as much right to put my opinion as anyone else here.

Its a consideration I've been trying to decide on for the past month and a half and with the advice given here and off line I decided to take the responsible approach and have an inexpensive but reliable car on hand, at least until my fiancee returns. I tried going car free, and probably could have made it work-after all I did for the past 4 months but realized that this type of living only works best in the city with more alternative transportation. Thanks again to the participants of this thread for the unofficial advice

Originally Posted by MikeRides

Hey guys, I just wanted to give an update if theres anyone following this thread from the beginning. I received a letter earlier this week indicating that after the investigations I was found not guilty to abuse/neglect of the child and that the case has been closed. Additionally, the lawsuit against the caseworker and supervisor for discrimination and harassment, will go before a judge on September 11th. I'm not expecting much of a settlement, except maybe my legal fees being paid and getting these two dimwits fired (far-fetched I know).

I'm shocked that you're going ahead with the suit and trying to get them fired. It sounds like you came to the same conclusion as the "dim-wit" case worker - that having a car is in the best interests of your stepdaughter. So what are you suing her for, again?

Thanks for the concise wrap-up on your decision and decision making considerations. Makes sense.

Your rational decision probably won't satisfy a few LCF ideologues more interested in tilting at political/cultural windmills and/or standing up to "The Man," regardless if specious posturing will likely be considered by any decision maker to be at the expense of the child's welfare.

Look at you, you got your victory *and* got to feel smug about it. Well done.

You have found yourself in a bull$!#! political push forcing people to own a car because it is the normal way things are done. Sry for your situation and I hope everything works out for you. I dont know how a court could legally force you to own a car though.

I don't know if it's illegal to ride a bike and be so handsome at the same time but whatever, I live dangerously.

You have found yourself in a bull$!#! political push forcing people to own a car because it is the normal way things are done. Sry for your situation and I hope everything works out for you. I dont know how a court could legally force you to own a car though.

They probably couldn't have, but when custody of your child is at stake, who wants to take the chance? I fully understand his choice to comply with this unreasonable request, but I hope the guys responsible get hammered for it too. For those saying he should just overlook it, how about the next time they do something like this? It's no different than a policeman abusing his authority. CPS is tasked with preventing abuse and neglect and not having a car does not constitute either one. There are millions of people who for religious reasons, physical reasons, (disability), economic reasons or moral reasons do not own a car.

Religious reasons? I'm curious. I don't have any of those yet. Moral reasons? Like its "wrong" to drive?

The Amish have already been mentioned, but I also believe that some environmentalists consider it immoral to generate CO2 if they have the ability to avoid doing so. Then there's also the whole, "live simply so others may simply live" ethos. I personally don't subscribe to either view, but if someone does, it's no reason to take their kids from them. I have a few non-mainstream views and practices myself and I'd hate to be told to conform or lose my daughters.

Then there are the practical reasons for not driving. A lot of driving in the US involves trips of two miles or less. Going by bicycle or foot is often quicker. Walking or biking to school is probably better than driving. It was the norm fifty years ago. Then the cost of automobile ownership, I've seen estimates that the average cost in the US is about $9,300 a year.

Another thought about this thread: it all seems a little Kafkaesque, or Orwellian, or a little like Ray Bradbury's "The Pedestrian". I hope what the OP has posted is all true.

Not to mention there are disabled who are unable to obtain licenses such as myself. They have no right to tell anyone to buy a car if they don't want to. It's the same bull**** we have to deal with in KY. However the people who filed the original complaint probably does this all the time and that's why they didn't state who they were so they could get out scotch free. I don't believe anonymous tips should be accepted into an official setting. It seems like the case worker should have been able to throw it out immediately. I'm not sure I buy the whole "they are under obligation to report" deal. It sounds like a bunch of baloney. If it isn't however the case worker doesn't deserve to be fired. The system is just too quick to take people's kids away for bull**** reasons.

And be sure to grow all your food yourself as food from a store gets to the store via internal combustion. I guess you shouldn't be buying anything at all. Everything arrives to the stores by internal combustion. That of course includes your bike.

Well Mike, it seems that all's well for now. I just want to say I wish nothing but good juju on you for you taking on this resposibility, goodness on the little one who is doing her part happily, and goodness on her mother who is fighting for our freedom to be harassed by someone who is too fearful to simply walk up to you on their own and say: "Hi . I notice you and your daughter bicycle to school...."

I don't believe anonymous tips should be accepted into an official setting. It seems like the case worker should have been able to throw it out immediately. I'm not sure I buy the whole "they are under obligation to report" deal. It sounds like a bunch of baloney. If it isn't however the case worker doesn't deserve to be fired. The system is just too quick to take people's kids away for bull**** reasons.

I am sure about how much you know about child welfare regulations and the requirements for the "system" to investigate reports of alleged child abuse or neglect.

I am sure about how much you know about child welfare regulations and the requirements for the "system" to investigate reports of alleged child abuse or neglect.

Okay, what is your aim?. Did this add to the discussion in any way?. The complaint didn't meet any of the criteria under the CFSA's system. If someone states a parent is endangering their child by letting them eat cereal in the morning do they have to investigate it?. I'm seriously asking not being snarky.

Logic and reason doesn't matter here. Big government laws, regulations, and rules matter! You will do as the big government tells you or they will release you of your responsibility to care for children. Any resistant to the big government will be quickly and harshly squashed. Expect punishment to continue well past any correction of this infraction.

Okay, what is your aim?. Did this add to the discussion in any way?. The complaint didn't meet any of the criteria under the CFSA's system. If someone states a parent is endangering their child by letting them eat cereal in the morning do they have to investigate it?. I'm seriously asking not being snarky.

How do YOU know what the actual complaint alleged, let alone if the complaint met any specific criteria for investigation, or what other potential issues related to the care of the child were encountered by the investigator? The OP has never been clear about what the specific complaint was, or what additional charges or allegations, if any, were being investigated. Did the agency declare after investigation that the complaint was unfounded, end of story; or was a specific solution proposed/directed by the agency to resolve the complaint and/or any other child welfare issues raised during the course of the investigation?

Logic and reason doesn't matter here. Big government laws, regulations, and rules matter! You will do as the big government tells you or they will release you of your responsibility to care for children. Any resistant to the big government will be quickly and harshly squashed. Expect punishment to continue well past any correction of this infraction.

Correct, logic and reason never seem to matter when it comes to irrational, hyperbolic and unfocused government (rules, laws, or personnel) bashing/ranting.

How do YOU know what the actual complaint alleged, let alone if the complaint met any specific criteria for investigation, or what other potential issues related to the care of the child were encountered by the investigator? The OP has never been clear about what the specific complaint was, or what additional charges or allegations, if any, were being investigated. Did the agency declare after investigation that the complaint was unfounded, end of story; or was a specific solution proposed/directed by the agency to resolve the complaint and/or any other child welfare issues raised during the course of the investigation?

The case worker said you need to buy a car. They are trying to live car free. To me it was rather easy to understand the situation, maybe you like sitting in forums all day debating bull**** for no reason. I don't. I have no reason to even understand these laws. I don't want bikers getting their kids taken away because they biked them to school. This is a bikeforum after all. Not a law forum lol.